The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Religious

Respondent

M.N. Raghunathan

Excerpt: - - 2247, revenue department, dated 28th december, 1967, clearly states that exemption is granted to m. 2247, dated 28th december, 1967. 8. we are clearly of opinion that when the exemption was granted, the authorities had taken into consideration his experience and capacity and then only such exemption was granted on merits which exemption must be deemed to have exempted the respondent fully from passing the revenue tests parts i and iii for any post which requires such qualification, in the said department......revenue other than those in the commercial taxes branch, the person should have passed the revenue test parts i, ii and iii and also revenue survey training for a period of not less than four weeks and service as revenue inspector in charge of a firka for a period of not less than one year.6. in annexure iv the qualification prescribed for the assistants in the office of the board of revenue other than those in the commercial tax branch is that the person should have passed revenue test parts i, ii and iii.7. as far as the present case is concerned,, there is no difficulty as the respondent has all other qualifications except the passing of parts i and iii of the revenue test. g.o. ms. no. 2247, revenue department, dated 28th december, 1967, clearly states that exemption is granted to.....

Judgment:

P.R. Gokulakrishnan, O.C.J.

1. This writ appeal is against the order passed by Mohan, J., in W.P. No. 5947 of 1975. It is unnecessary for us to elaborately state the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the respondent herein became the regularly appointed Assistant by virtue of the exemption granted to him in G.O.Ms. No. 2247, Revenue, dated 28th December, 1967. As per this Government order, the respondent was exempted with effect from the date of the said order of the Government from passing the Revenue Tests, Parts I and III, so as to enable him to be regularly appointed as an Assistant in the Board of Revenue. It is the admitted case that the respondent is a confirmed Assistant by virtue of the said Government Order. It is also admitted that the respondent has passed Part II of the Revenue Test. Subsequently, the respondent was promoted as Superintendent in the very same Department. When the Board of Revenue sought the concurrence of the Government as regards the confirmation of the respondent as Superintendent, the Government issued a show cause notice to the respondent as to why the promotion of the respondent as Superintendent should not be cancelled on the ground that he had not passed the required examinations and also on the ground that the exemption granted will enure only for regularising him as Assistant in the Board of Revenue and ultimately, the Government cancelled the proceedings of the Board dated 20th June, 1972. It is as against this order of the Government the respondent filed W.P. No. 5947 of 197S. The learned Judge of this Court held that once the exemption is granted, whereby the respondent was not required to pass Parts I and III of the Revenue Test, that exemption should be made available not only for the particular post which required those qualifications but even for further promotion unless there is something to indicate to the contrary. With these observations the learned Judge allowed the writ petition by quashing the impugned order. It is as against this Order of the learned Judge, the Government has preferred the above writ appeal.

2. According to the learned Government Pleader, the exemption granted will enure only to the post of the Assistant and if the respondent has to be promoted as the Superintendent, he has to qualify himself by passing the prescribed tests for the said post, that is, Parts I and TTT of the Revenue Test apart from the other qualifications required for the same.

3. Mr. D. Raju, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand submitted that once the exemption is granted it is deemed that the person, is qualified for the post of an Assistant and there is no necessity for him to pass the prescribed tests for which exemption has been granted. Hence, according to the learned Counsel, there is no need for the respondent to pass Parts I and III of the Revenue Test to qualify himself for the post of Superintendent also.

4. Rule 30(b) of the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules, states that no member of the service shall be eligible for promotion to any of the posts mentioned in column (f) of Annexure TV unless and until he has passed the special tests or undergone the training, if any, specified in the corresponding entry in column 2 thereof.

5. In Annexure IV it is stated that for the post of Superintendent in the Office of the Board of Revenue other than those in the Commercial Taxes Branch, the person should have passed the Revenue Test Parts I, II and III and also Revenue survey training for a period of not less than four weeks and service as Revenue Inspector in charge of a firka for a period of not less than one year.

6. In Annexure IV the qualification prescribed for the Assistants in the Office of the Board of Revenue other than those in the Commercial Tax Branch is that the person should have passed Revenue Test Parts I, II and III.

7. As far as the present case is concerned,, there is no difficulty as the respondent has all other qualifications except the passing of Parts I and III of the Revenue Test. G.O. Ms. No. 2247, Revenue Department, dated 28th December, 1967, clearly states that exemption is granted to M.N. Raghunathan, who is the respondent herein, with effect from the date-of the said order from passing the Revenue Test Parts I and III in order to enable him to be appointed as an Assistant in the Office of the Board of Revenue. This shows that the authorities thought it fit that the respondent even without passing Parts T and ITT of the Revenue Test is proficient in; handling such subjects and that is why the exemption was granted while the respondent was appointed as Assistant. It is clear from the Annexure IV, that for the post of Assistant also a person must pass Parts I, II and III of the Revenue Tests. Once he acquires the knowledge in the said subject, and that has been recognised by the Government by granting the exemption, it is too much on the part of the Government to state that the respondent must again pass the said test to qualify himself to the post of Superintendent. The exemption was granted by virtue of the provisions contained in Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. Rule 48 reads as follows:

48. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the special rules, the Governor shall have power to deal with the case of any person or class of persons serving in a civil capacity under the Government of Tamil Nadu or of any person who has or of any class of persons who have served as aforesaid or any candidate or class of candidates for appointment to a service in such manner as may appear to him to be just and equitable:

Provided that, where any such rule is applicable tothe case of any person or class or persons, the case shall not be dealt with in any manner less favourable to him or them than that provided by that rule.

It is by virtue of this rule, the exemption was correctly granted to the respondent who has put in sufficient number of years of service in the Department and after considering his merit, the exemption was granted by the G.O. Ms. No. 2247, dated 28th December, 1967.

8. We are clearly of opinion that when the exemption was granted, the authorities had taken into consideration his experience and capacity and then only such exemption was granted on merits which exemption must be deemed to have exempted the respondent fully from passing the Revenue Tests Parts I and III for any post which requires such qualification, in the said Department. A reading of the G.O. Ms. No. 2247, Revenue would further indicate that exemption granted in favour of the respondent from passing the Revenue Tests, Parts I and III is with immediate effect: land for all purposes though in order to enable him to be appointed as an Assistant in the Board of Revenue immediately. The other reason given by the Government to the effect that the appellant ought to have served as an Assistant for a period of one year is not supported by any provision or rules and as such this will not be a disqualification for the respondent to become the Superintendent.

9. For all these reasons we are in complete agreement with the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court and as such, the writ appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.